Dubstepforum.com

christophera wrote:also i haven't watched this episode but the one about reality was dope and i know you all heard me saying i told you so in your heads the whole time!

fair play

but at the same time its different when its coming out of the mouths of the scientists who create the theories and when it comes from you... and even those scientists actually admit they have no idea what the fuck its all about whereas you are quite the opposite

humility is good sometimes

BACK ON TOPIC:

these look great, thanks for posting, i will watch both now.

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

cityzen wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:It basically concluded that scientists seem to operate in a bubble, work on stuff in relative secrecy, unveil it and expect the public to just accept it.

There's very little direct communication between the public and the scientific community.

Unless in the context of global warming/food shortage/drinking water shortage, I fail to see the problem with this.

If there were a problem, it would be the line you missed out in your quote.

It's mostly filtered through the media which alters things for its own ends (often political), so the public recieves a very skewed interpretation of what's going on.

To me the way you phrased "....unveil it and expect the public to just accept it." made it sound like there was a problem with the way scientists go about their business.
But if you're placing the blame on the media then we aren't disagreeing on anything, but then, i'm not sure we were in the first place.

cityzen wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

cityzen wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:It basically concluded that scientists seem to operate in a bubble, work on stuff in relative secrecy, unveil it and expect the public to just accept it.

There's very little direct communication between the public and the scientific community.

Unless in the context of global warming/food shortage/drinking water shortage, I fail to see the problem with this.

If there were a problem, it would be the line you missed out in your quote.

It's mostly filtered through the media which alters things for its own ends (often political), so the public recieves a very skewed interpretation of what's going on.

To me the way you phrased "....unveil it and expect the public to just accept it." made it sound like there was a problem with the way scientists go about their business.
But if you're placing the blame on the media then we aren't disagreeing on anything, but then, i'm not sure we were in the first place.

Yeah. Fair point. The wording was a bit off.

If the scientists had direct communication, there would be less room for the media to weave their dark magic.

The problem is the media acting as the middle man between the scientific community and the public.

The problem with a lot of things is the media, IMO.

cityzen wrote:The problem with a lot of things is the media, IMO.

Yeah. Having people in control of how other people recieve information and what information they recieve isn't going to end well.

Unavoidable, though.

The audience have a lot to answer for too, if we didn't lap up the vacuous shite then there would be no demand.

firky wrote:The audience have a lot to answer for too, if we didn't lap up the vacuous shite then there would be no demand.

If it wasn't there in the first place we wouldn't lap it up.

Someone had to put it there for people to lap it up.

I don't buy that, many people would much rather watch the news condensed in sixty seconds like on BBC 3 than spend an hour watching a more balanced news show like on BBC 4. I blame the western obsession with instant satisfaction, we want fast food, fast delivery, fast broadband etc. etc.

firky wrote:I don't buy that, many people would much rather watch the news condensed in sixty seconds like on BBC 3 than spend an hour watching a more balanced news show like on BBC 4. I blame the western obsession with instant satisfaction, we want fast food, fast delivery, fast broadband etc. etc.

Werd. People seem to have this unflinching need for instant gratification.

The people behind the media are the same as the people who lap up the media. Someone had to put vacuous shit out there as a product in the first place. It was only a matter of time before somebody did it. People seem to be drawn to shit, decay and negativity.

firky wrote:I blame the western obsession with instant satisfaction, we want fast food, fast delivery, fast broadband etc. etc.

And I blame a lot of that on the media. We weren't like that until we had ads beamed into our living rooms telling us that if we didn't have (or at the very least aspire to have) all these things then we are scum.

I don't think you can blame the media for the failings in human psychology. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of there is a frailty in the human psyche to be exploited. If anything, blame humanity for being stupid or for having lack of impulse control.

cityzen wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:It basically concluded that scientists seem to operate in a bubble, work on stuff in relative secrecy, unveil it and expect the public to just accept it.

There's very little direct communication between the public and the scientific community.

Unless in the context of global warming/food shortage/drinking water shortage, I fail to see the problem with this.

Any failure in communications between groups of people leads to issues. Whether its scientists to the general public, politicians to scientists, teachers to schoolchildren, whatever. At the very least, it slows down progress. At worst it can lead to major schisms and disasters.

So not having direct communication between the public and the scientific community is very much a problem.

Furthermore, the "scientific community" is very much a part of the public as well. Why should they be seen as different from any other person?

I found the bit on GM foods interesting... more stuff like that and it processes need to be open to public scrutiny and not worked on behind closed doors which allows fear mongering and the all that get out of hand on the internet.

There was one example used - "I won't eat anything with genes in it. Everything has genes in it"

cityzen wrote:

firky wrote:I blame the western obsession with instant satisfaction, we want fast food, fast delivery, fast broadband etc. etc.

And I blame a lot of that on the media. We weren't like that until we had ads beamed into our living rooms telling us that if we didn't have (or at the very least aspire to have) all these things then we are scum.

i feel its also alot to do with people needing their world view to be confirmed by an authoratative source.
'we are bringing democracy and peace to the thirld world!'
'globalisation is great for everyone!'
'people you dont understand are evil!'
and everyone breathes a subconcious sigh of relief as their strongly held ignorant beliefs are strengthened once again.

kay wrote:I don't think you can blame the media for the failings in human psychology. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of there is a frailty in the human psyche to be exploited. If anything, blame humanity for being stupid or for having lack of impulse control.

To me that sounds the same as "I don't think you can blame muggers for the frailty of old ladies. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of people growing old. If anything, blame old people for not being able to defend themselves."
Or am I just being stupid?

Motorway to Roswell wrote:The problem is the media acting as the middle man between the scientific community and the public.

This is a point that Ben Goldacre makes a lot, but I think there's a big problem with the way that the media use people 'science journalists' who haven't got a bastard clue about science, and in particular about how to tell good research from PR driven balls. People would be pissed off if the arts section of their paper had some coverage of eg the new director of the Tate that said "well, I don't really know anything about art but this guys PR man says he's fantastic so that's good." But that's basically what you get all the time in the science pages.

I dunno, I suppose the school science syllabus could do more to prepare people for how they're going to be shown science as well, eg talk about stuff like the scientific method, hypothesis testing, blind testing, bias, publication and peer review, statistical significance and all that sort of stuff. (But then, I think that the education system should generally do a lot more to help people identify when the media is talking bollocks.)

Reading Bad Science is a good start, if you don't already:
http://www.badscience.net/

cityzen wrote:

kay wrote:I don't think you can blame the media for the failings in human psychology. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of there is a frailty in the human psyche to be exploited. If anything, blame humanity for being stupid or for having lack of impulse control.

To me that sounds the same as "I don't think you can blame muggers for the frailty of old ladies. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of people growing old. If anything, blame old people for not being able to defend themselves."
Or am I just being stupid?

Yes, and obtuse. But mostly just stupid.

We have the capability of rising above our basic psychologies, while we do not yet have the ability to rise above our physical frailties. Anyway, muggers wouldn't be responsible for old ladies being frail. Old ladies get frail on their own. Muggers might take advantage of old ladies being frail, but old ladies do not have any ability to stop themselves from becoming frail.

kay wrote:

cityzen wrote:

kay wrote:I don't think you can blame the media for the failings in human psychology. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of there is a frailty in the human psyche to be exploited. If anything, blame humanity for being stupid or for having lack of impulse control.

To me that sounds the same as "I don't think you can blame muggers for the frailty of old ladies. They may be predators or parasites, but this is only possible because of people growing old. If anything, blame old people for not being able to defend themselves."
Or am I just being stupid?

Yes, and obtuse. But mostly just stupid.

We have the capability of rising above our basic psychologies, while we do not yet have the ability to rise above our physical frailties. Anyway, muggers wouldn't be responsible for old ladies being frail. Old ladies get frail on their own. Muggers might take advantage of old ladies being frail, but old ladies do not have any ability to stop themselves from becoming frail.

Would you say the majority of the population have the ability to see through media tricks? I would disagree which is why I used that analogy - frailty in the human psyche is beyond our control as is growing old.
You go on to say " Anyway, muggers wouldn't be responsible for old ladies being frail." Indeed. But the media isn't responsible for people being susceptible to media trickery. In both the hypothetical muggers case and the medias case they exploit things beyond our control.
When I asked if I was being stupid it was a genuine question. This being the interwebs, perhaps when you read it your inner monologue created a tone of sarcasm.
Just so you know, it's all love. If I can be proved wrong at anything, far from being angry that i've been challenged, I will be happy that my understanding of the truth has been furthered.

christophera wrote:also i haven't watched this episode but the one about reality was dope and i know you all heard me saying i told you so in your heads the whole time!

It's not an original concept though, many philosophers have been asking the same question for thousands of years. They may not have had the knowledge we do now* but the questions were still pondered.


*which doesn't even answer the question but raises more

Kay's pretty much said what I was going to say, bastard.

firky wrote:

christophera wrote:also i haven't watched this episode but the one about reality was dope and i know you all heard me saying i told you so in your heads the whole time!

It's not an original concept though, many philosophers have been asking the same question for thousands of years. They may not have had the knowledge we do now* but the questions were still pondered.


*which doesn't even answer the question but raises more

also wait 30 years and see how holographic the universe is...

my guess is the maths will have gone further and gotten more abstract, and we will have found another equally abstract and in some ways meaningless ascription of 'the truth about reality'

eventually we won't be able to describe the world around us in any other way than by referral to mathematical ideas. in just the same way some philosophy genuinely loses meaning without the prerequisite logic, the physics won't mean anything without the maths. we've probably been at that stage for time anyway...